[ppml] Policy Proposal: Definition of known ISP and changes toIPv6 initial allocation criteria

[Bill Darte]

"known" is my only issue with the rewording.
I believe know and existing are the same thing to a substantial number
of entities and if that is the case, then it should be demonstrable and
thus the case for ARIN.

bd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:20 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Definition of known ISP 
> and changes toIPv6 initial allocation criteria
> 
> 
> In a message written on Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:51:27PM 
> -0400, Member Services wrote:
> > Replace 6.5.1.1 (d) with the following text:
> > 
> >      d.  be an existing ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for
> >          making assignments to at least 200 separate organizations
> >          within five years.
> 
> In my IPv6 Policy Housekeeping proposal, recently sent to 
> PPML I proposed similar language, which was discovered today 
> during AC review of the various proposals.  Here's the 
> language from the other proposal:
> 
> ] Change I:
> ] 
> ]    In section 6.5.1.1.d, replace the existing statement with the new
> ]    statement:
> ] 
> ]        "be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or 
> have a plan for
> ]         making at least 200 end-site assignments to other 
> organizations
> ]         within 5 years."
> 
> Were both proposals to pass, are these substantially similar 
> enough that the AC could use either one to serve the purpose?
> 
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>